Allowed

B. Vijaya Kumar v. D.gopala Krishna Reddy

Telangana HC21 Jun 2013CMA/1418/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of interlocutory application for temporary injunction was allowed. The high court upheld the interim order pending trial, directing the trial court to hear the suit for declaration and injunction and restraining appellants from creating third-party rights.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed. Temporary injunction is restored until disposal of the suit. Appellants restrained from creating third-party rights or altering the property nature.

B. Vijaya Kumar Vs D.gopala Krishna Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

C.M.A. No.1418 of 2008

¶3

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶4

The appellants filed O.S.No.898 of 2007 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the respondents for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. They have also filed I.A.No.3296 of 2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for temporary injunction. After contest by the respondents herein, the trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 03.11.2008. Hence, this appeal.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The appellants have narrated the manner in which they are said to have acquired the title to the suit schedule property and repeated the contents of the plaint in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. The respondents, on the other hand, filed counter denying the averments in the affidavit.

¶7

Before the trial Court, the appellants filed Exs.A1 to A33 in support of their claim. The respondents, on the other hand, filed Exs.B1 to B29. The trial Court, no doubt, recorded a finding to the effect that the appellants failed to establish their possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

¶8

This Court granted interim injunction on 12.12.2008 in C.M.A.M.P.No.2668 of 2008. It is, no doubt, true that the respondents filed C.M.A.M.P.No.2315 of 2011 with a prayer to vacate the order, dated 12.12.2008. The fact remains that the order of temporary injunction is in operation for the past five years, and several complications would arise, if any different view is taken at this stage. None of the observations made by the trial Court in the order under appeal can be treated as final when the suit is taken up for trial.

¶9

Hence, the appeal is allowed. There shall be temporary injunction, to be in force, till the disposal of the suit. We, however, direct that the appellants shall not create any third party rights nor shall alter the nature of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. The trial Court shall take up the suit for hearing and dispose of the same at the earliest. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.

¶11

L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J

¶12

______________________ S.V. BHATT,J

¶13

Dt:21.06.2013 kdl

B. Vijaya Kumar v. D.gopala Krishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Vijaya Kumar v. D.gopala Krishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Sita Ronfed Vs v.Ronfed

A.Srinivas Vs a.Rani Ratna Prabha , Rani

Namratha Ahuja Visakapatnam Vs Harish Jahuja Bhilai Durg M.P.State

Sanaboyina Pullaiah Setty Pedapudi E.G.D Vs Krishnarayudu Devasthanam K.Pedapudi

M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. v. Hemalatha

M/s.Sai Sanjeevani Hospital Vs Sri Pranav Ravi